# Soloman Amendment Upheld - Law Schools Cannot Ban Military Recruiters **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276 "2006-03-06T18:32:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/1 "2006-03-06T18:32:08Z")
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Soloman Amendment, Congress’ requirement that law schools that receive federal funds must permit military recruiters access to their campuses. This is, of course, an excellent decision, right on the money. The Third Circuit had previously struck down the Soloman Amendment, relying heavily on a case called _Boy Scouts of America v. Dale_. In _Dale_, the Court held that the Scouts’ First Amendment right of free association meant that they could not be compelled to accept gay scout leaders. The Third Circuit said that using that reasoning, law schools could not be compelled to accept military recruiters. The Supreme Court shredded that argument, pointing out: > [@](#): > > To comply with > the statute, law schools must allow military recruiters on campus and assist them in whatever way the school chooses to assist other employers. Law schools therefore **associate** with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them. But recruiters are not part of the law school. Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students, not to become members of the school’s expressive association. This distinction is critical. The Court also shredded the argument that the law schools’ own message is being somehow compromised by the mere presence of recruiters: > [@](#): > > Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy (citation omitted). Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school. This is both a correct decision under the law, and a wise expression of national policy. How nice to have both at once! ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/2 "2006-03-06T18:48:44Z")
I’m reading the opinion at the moment and I would have to agree with you. It appears to be a good decision.\* \*Though I will reserve judgment until I can read the dissent. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/3 "2006-03-06T18:51:15Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I’m reading the opinion at the moment and I would have to agree with you. It appears to be a good decision.\* > \*Though I will reserve judgment until I can read the dissent. Won’t be one… all justices agreed ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/4 "2006-03-06T18:55:41Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Won’t be one… all justices agreed Was wondering why I didn’t see a dissent. Of course, if I had just read the front page of the bulletin I could have figured that out instantly :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/5 "2006-03-06T18:57:16Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I’m reading the opinion at the moment and I would have to agree with you. It appears to be a good decision.\* > \*Though I will reserve judgment until I can read the dissent. I suppose you could read the Third Circuit’s opinion. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/6 "2006-03-06T18:58:20Z")
What’s the point of this amendment? Are the armed forces really that hard up for JAGs? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/7 "2006-03-06T19:02:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What’s the point of this amendment? Are the armed forces really that hard up for JAGs? It wasn’t about law schools, it just happened to be law school who brought charges… And it simply says you can not use different standards for different groups… and esp. government run positions if you take federal money ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/8 "2006-03-06T19:05:17Z")
More important question: > [@Bricker](#): > > Soloman Amendment or > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Solomon Amendment ? 🆒 Please don’t hurt me too much ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/9 "2006-03-06T19:11:20Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > More important question: > or? > > 🆒 > Please don’t hurt me too much 😛 **Solomon** Amendment, 10 U. S. C. A. §983 (Supp. 2005). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/10 "2006-03-06T19:45:33Z")
To what groups could Congress grant equal recruiting priviledges? Could Congress require law schools to accept recruiters for \*any \*otherwise legal group, or is there something special about the military? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/11 "2006-03-06T19:53:04Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > And it simply says you can not use different standards for different groups… and esp. government run positions if you take federal money No, the Solomon Amendment has nothing to do with different standards for different groups. The Amendment says that if an institution wants government money, it has to grant space to military recruiters regardless of any standards that institution may set for other employers. The problem was that many schools had a policy of not allowing any institution/employer to recruit on campus if they had a policy of discrimination against certain classes, including sexual orientation. Since the military has a blatant policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation, they ran afoul of these guidelines and so were barred from recruiting. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/12 "2006-03-06T19:53:13Z")
Also, can Congress require that privileges be spelled with a ‘d’? That would make more sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/13 "2006-03-06T19:55:35Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > it just happened to be law school who brought charges Somehow I doubt that “just happened”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/14 "2006-03-06T19:57:16Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > Also, can Congress require that privileges be spelled with a ‘d’? That would make more sense to me. Surely you . . . “jest” would be too strong a word . . . ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/15 "2006-03-06T19:59:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Surely you . . . “jest” would be too strong a word . . . Heaven’s no, I would never joke about such an important matter of public policy. Why, if Congress can’t intervene in spelling, do they really have any power at all?! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/16 "2006-03-06T20:00:59Z")
King’s coin; king’s rules. I have a tiny bit of sympathy for the desires of the schools, (not a huge amount), but I don’t see how they actually thought their argument would hold water. (Particularly since sexual orientation is still not a federally recognized class against which one can be barred from discriminating.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/17 "2006-03-06T20:01:01Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > No, the Solomon Amendment has nothing to do with different standards for different groups. The Amendment says that if an institution wants government money, it has to grant space to military recruiters regardless of any standards that institution may set for other employers. The problem was that many schools had a policy of not allowing any institution/employer to recruit on campus if they had a policy of discrimination against certain classes, including sexual orientation. Since the military has a blatant policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation, they ran afoul of these guidelines and so were barred from recruiting. That’s really not the issue at hand although it was definitely one that the law schools were smart to bring up. Certain schools, Ivy league schools being chief among them, have been trying to keep military recruiters off campus at least since the Vietnam War. This is just another attempt at an old goal for certain colleges. Sort of like Pro-Lifers introduce new stuff to try and attack Roe v. Wade all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/18 "2006-03-06T20:02:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > King’s coin; king’s rules. > > I have a tiny bit of sympathy for the desires of the schools, (not a huge amount), but I don’t see how they actually thought their argument would hold water. (Particularly since sexual orientation is still not a federally recognized class against which one can be barred from discriminating.) Yep, anyone who lives in America, especially lawyers should be aware that a common knowledge thing here is that if you accept federal funding you accept the fact it will at some point be used as leverage against you. Bricker’s title isn’t precisely accurate however as Law Schools can ban military recruiters if they choose to lose the federal funding. I believe 2-3 law schools have actually done this already. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/19 "2006-03-06T20:03:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > King’s coin; king’s rules. > > I have a tiny bit of sympathy for the desires of the schools, (not a huge amount), but I don’t see how they actually thought their argument would hold water. (Particularly since sexual orientation is still not a federally recognized class against which one can be barred from discriminating.) I believe the court also ruled that Congress could directly require the schools to accept the recruiters instead of making it a funding-dependent decision. But, someone knowledgier than I may come along and correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/20 "2006-03-06T20:05:24Z")
To quote the court, “…the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276.md?page=2)